This blog on Texas education contains posts on accountability, testing, college readiness, dropouts, bilingual education, immigration, school finance, race, class, and gender issues with additional focus at the national level.

Translate

Tx Trib Schools Explorer

Thursday, March 27, 2014

International Scores Irrelevant to Economic Competitiveness

At best, these tests are diversionary; at worst, they narrow curriculum and work against inventive and innovative thinking. They also represent a measurement system that is silent on questions of equity.

"...given the sampling and measurement flaws in the rankings and their
negligible role in assessing the overall quality of education systems,
much less the strength of economies. Whether or not the United States
continues to rank high on competitiveness, international test scores
will remain virtually irrelevant."

By Invited Contributor Listed Below on
March 27, 2014 8:58 AM|
No comments

Today's guest contributor is Iris C. Rotberg, Research Professor of Education Policy, The George Washington University.

The ranking of the United States on international tests of science
and mathematics continues to fuel rhetoric about economic
competitiveness and shortages of scientists and engineers, despite the
fact that the United States consistently ranks first, or among the top
countries, in competitiveness. Moreover, there is little evidence of
shortages of scientists and engineers to fill traditional science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs. It is sometimes argued,
however, that these apparent strengths are fragile and we should not
assume that because the numbers look good now they will continue to look
good in the future. That is a fair argument--none of us can predict
long-term economic and scientific strength with any degree of certainty.
But we do know that, regardless of the outcome, it will not be
international test-score rankings that make the difference.
The irrelevance of test-score rankings is illustrated in reports of the IMD (a global business school in Switzerland) and the World Economic Forum,
which rank countries by international competitiveness. The rankings are
based on a set of variables chosen to reflect current knowledge about
what is most important in determining competitiveness. These variables
include, for example, the soundness of the economy and financial sector;
business sophistication; innovation; the quality and fairness of
governmental and private institutions; market efficiency; basic,
technological, and scientific infrastructure; and the overall strength
of the education system (primarily capacity and access at all levels of
education). International test-score rank was only one of the 113
criteria used by the IMD to measure these variables. Performance on
international test-score comparisons was not even mentioned among the
114 criteria used by the World Economic Forum--and for good reason,
given the sampling and measurement flaws in the rankings and their
negligible role in assessing the overall quality of education systems,
much less the strength of economies. Whether or not the United States
continues to rank high on competitiveness, international test scores
will remain virtually irrelevant.
The test-score rankings also have little value in predicting whether a
country will produce an "adequate" supply of scientists and engineers.
The U.S. rank on test-score comparisons is often interpreted as a proxy
for a shortage of talent in STEM fields, despite strong evidence that
the United States has a large supply of students capable of going into
those fields. It is true that many talented students choose not to enter
STEM fields and many others who receive degrees in these fields choose
not to work in them. A study conducted by Anthony P. Carnevale and
colleagues at Georgetown University, for example, found that only a
fourth of high school students who score in the top quartile in
mathematics choose to enter a STEM major in college; only half the
students who start with a STEM major graduate with that major; and fewer
than half the students who graduate with a STEM major are actually
working in STEM fields 10 years later. These students, instead, have
entered other fields, including architecture, business, finance, or
medicine. The point is that the attrition from traditional STEM fields
does not reflect a lack of U.S. talent or training in these fields, but
rather such factors as interests, salary differentials, a weak economy,
or outsourcing of jobs because of lower wages outside the United States.
Apple is unlikely to hire U.S. workers to replace the hundreds of
thousands of workers outside the United States who are manufacturing and
assembling component parts for its products because of more correct
answers on a math test.
The United States currently has an ample supply of workers to fill
traditional STEM jobs. Carnevale and colleagues, however, frame the
question differently and see a potential for future shortages. They ask
whether the country can produce a skilled labor force large enough to
fill both the traditional STEM jobs as well as the large number of other
jobs that might draw on similar skills, such as finance and medicine,
taking into account projected retirement rates, possible reductions in
foreign-born workers, and a future growth in STEM jobs at
sub-baccalaureate as well as higher levels of education.
Whether or not the predicted shortages occur, the international
test-score comparisons have become a diversion that detracts attention
from the factors that can make a difference in scientific innovation and
competitiveness. Indeed, the increasing focus on test scores has led to
scripted learning and narrowing of the curriculum--trends that are
inconsistent with an approach that encourages problem solving and
innovation. That focus is also inconsistent with educational approaches
designed to give students a broad set of skills that will contribute to
their effectiveness in the workplace and is likely to be
counterproductive in both attracting and retaining students in STEM
fields.
The focus on test scores also detracts attention from the serious
underrepresentation of low-income populations in STEM and the larger
problem that underrepresentation illustrates--the growing gap in income
and access. The gap will not be narrowed by rhetoric about international
test-score rankings.